Canonical's Steam Snap is Causing Headaches for Valve - OMG! Ubuntu
www.omgubuntu.co.uk
Canonical may be ramping up its efforts to improve the Ubuntu gaming experience — yasss — but it seems their Steam snap package is causing a few headaches

Timothée Besset, a software engineer who works on the Steam client for Valve, took to Mastodon this week to reveal: “Valve is seeing an increasing number of bug reports for issues caused by Canonical’s repackaging of the Steam client through snap”.

“We are not involved with the snap repackaging. It has a lot of issues”, Besset adds, noting that “the best way to install Steam on Debian and derivative operating systems is to […] use the official .deb”.

Those who don’t want to use the official Deb package are instead asked to ‘consider the Flatpak version’ — though like Canonical’s Steam snap the Steam Flatpak is also unofficial, and no directly supported by Valve.

    • bjorney@lemmy.ca
      81·
      10 months ago

      They didn’t “disable the format”

      From your own link:

      Do keep in mind that “not installed by default” is not the same as “not available to install at all”. To this end, Flatpak continues to be available in the Ubuntu repos, and users of Ubuntu flavors are free to install Flatpak

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        61·
        10 months ago

        Well, yeah, you can enable it. But if it’s not active in their GUI software store by default, then many users will not find / look for it. It’s rather important for a package format that you don’t have to separately install it.

        • bjorney@lemmy.ca
          11·
          10 months ago

          Why do you need to have two package formats that do the same thing installed by default? If you could install snaps and flatpaks both from the same store you could have 2 (or 3 if you also installed the .deb) copies of the same app, like steam etc installed, and user sessions and games set up on one wouldn’t be launchable from the other because they all store their state and config in different locations - the only way to know what config your program is launching with would be to inspect and rename the launcher scripts. If you are intending to support naive users this is the absolute worst case scenario. It would be like debian including pacman by default as well alongside apt for maximum user accessibility confusion.

          • Ephera@lemmy.ml
            61·
            10 months ago

            Because many apps will (or would prefer to) only be bundled as Flatpak. I agree that the deduplication is not a trivial problem to solve, even if they might have already solved it for DEBs (I don’t know).

            But your entire comment could just as well be a rant why Canonical shouldn’t have introduced Snaps in the first place. It might be good for their bank account, if they can somehow monetize part of the cake, but splitting the cake even further, after it’s already split into DEB, RPM, AppImage, Flatpak, Docker, APK etc., that’s maximum user confusion.

            • bjorney@lemmy.ca
              1·
              10 months ago

              Because many apps will (or would prefer to) only be bundled as Flatpak.

              This reads like speculation to me and is directly contrary to the file counts on flathub and snapcraft. What about CLI apps and server software? How are they supposed to distribute their software if not via snap? (Flatpak doesn’t support this well)

              could just as well be a rant why Canonical shouldn’t have introduced Snaps in the first place

              You are acting like Ubuntu core (and snaps) came after flatpak? Snaps were announced almost a decade ago

              Like, I get you don’t like snaps, but your argument is basically “every Linux distribution should ship the same default software, and it should be the software I choose”

              • Ephera@lemmy.ml
                2·
                10 months ago

                I don’t know why you’re trying to interpret all kinds of things into my comment. I did not say any of that. This isn’t some competition to show who’s technically more correct.